An appellate panel has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a man who claimed that Michigan’s paternity law violates the equal protection clause. The lawsuit, filed by the National Center for Men, argued that men involved in unintended pregnancies should have the option to decline financial responsibility for the child. Courts have previously ruled that any possible inequities experienced by men in such circumstances are outweighed by the interests of the child.

When Jasmin Watson talks about her divorce, she sounds tired and a little frustrated. Mostly, though, she’s concerned about how her children—ages 9, 11 and 12—are holding up. They’re doing better, she says, thanks in part to a package that arrived in the mail from her attorney.

Inside was a video game called Earthquake in Zip­land, a research-based video game designed to help school-age children cope with divorce. Family lawyer Lee Rosen, whose firm is handling Watson’s divorce, discovered the game’s Web site last fall while surfing the Internet for resources to help clients of his Raleigh, N.C.-based firm. After playing the game with his own kids, he ordered three dozen or so to give out to clients.

“We used to hand out books, but if you hand a kid a book, they know what you’re up to,” says Rosen, whose three offices handle about 700 divorces a year. “With a video game, it’s something to play with and it engages kids, especially boys.”

And what he’s hearing back from his clients is that the game is working. “There’s just not anything like it that facilitates conversations,” Rosen says. Watson says she’s noticed a change since her kids started playing the game, especially with her youngest. “She asks questions now. I don’t know if that’s just because of the game, but they all definitely got into it—they thought it was challenging, and my kids love a challenge.”

In the game, a superhero named Moose must repair his country after an earthquake has caused upheaval and chaos. As kids play through, they must perform certain tasks, including writing in an online journal, to keep moving to higher levels. Using the earthquake as a metaphor for their life, children learn that “even a superhero can’t put everything together exactly the way it was before,” says Hank Shrier, who directs marketing for the game’s makers, Jerusalem-based Zipland Inter­active. (Click here to see clips of the game.)

The Rosen Law Firm was one of the first firms to order the game, says Zipland president and family therapist Chaya Harash. She hopes more will follow, especially based on the warm reception she received from both lawyers and judges when she presented the game at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts conference in Washington, D.C., this past summer.

But Rosen says the game wasn’t an instant hit with the 11 other lawyers in his firm. “We basically handed it out to them and said, ‘You can give these to people if you’d like to,’ but largely they did nothing with them.” When Rosen demonstrated the game at a staff meeting, though, it clicked.

Rosen says the game doesn’t just help clients; it creates good will for the firm, too. “Clients are used to lawyers taking their money, but they’re not used to getting something, and when you give them a gift that also benefits their children, that’s something exponentially more powerful.”

That’s certainly reflected in Watson’s reaction when she received the game. “I was like, ‘Me? You thought of me?’ ” she recalls. “It made me feel like I wasn’t just another person—[that my lawyer] thought of me out of all those clients. It made me feel a little more important.”

Harris County voters yesterday approved a $70 million dollar bond to construct a new family law center for Harris County, Texas. The facility will be located in the downtown Houston court complex.

The bond issue passed by a very narrow margin. 50.6% for and 49.4% against.

According to Family District Judge Bonnie Hellums, the building might be open in January 2011.
The new building will be built on the block north of the present one. It will require razing the “Coffee Pot” building which Harris County vacated, and also the teardown of the Lomas & Nettleston parking garage.

The building will be a “one stop shop” for most all family law services. Currently many of the services are spread across downtown. The building will house Family Law Intake, Children’s Protective Services, the Domestic Relations Office, the Attorney General, and the Houston Bar Association’s Volunteer Lawyer Program.

There will be rooms for children to give videotaped testimony via closed circuited television

With one floor left as a shell, the building should be adequate for the county’s family law needs for 15-20 years, Judge Hellums said. She noted the huge caseload carried by the Harris County Family District Courts and predicted it will only increase.

The volatile nature of many family law cases is reflected in safety plans for the new building. Today, to pursue a complaint, Houston area domestic violence victims must go to several agencies in different offices, often by bus, Judge Hellums said. The new building will have offices for assistant district attorneys, law enforcement officers, doctors and the Houston Area Women’s Center.

When protective orders are being argued and negotiated, there will be separate rooms for the litigants, which should reduce tensions. There will be rooms for supervised visitation and monitoring exchanges between custodial and non-custodial parents. Judges will have secure parking in a level below the building reported Judge Hellums.

The New Harris County Family Law Center will also have a drug lab. Litigants suspected of abusing drugs-an issue in many cases- are currently sent to a lab three blocks away. To avoid the drug test, some litigants claim to get lost and arrive shaved (to avoid giving hair follicle samples). This possibility will be eliminated.

Judge Hellums is particularly interested in ensuring there is a designated Family Drug Court, which she currently presides over.

Follows is the transcript from last nights CNN news show: Anderson Cooper. In it, Augusta Roman, who has used up all her appeals in Texas indicates that her attorney is working on a brief to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. From politics, let’s turn to a story that is certainly going to have you talking tonight. Divorce cases are often bitter and brutal. And they certainly get worse when there’s a child caught in the middle. But there’s one battle that is not over a boy or a girl. It’s over frozen embryos and just who they belong to. CNN’s Gary Tuchman has our report tonight. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They are from very different countries and cultures, but Augusta and Randy Roman hit it off quickly when they met in Texas. AUGUSTA ROMAN, FORMER WIFE OF RANDY ROMAN: We wanted to get married and have kids. So, we didn’t really have a long, what you call it… TUCHMAN (on camera): Courtship. A. ROMAN: Courtship. So, we talked about it, and we wanted to get married and start a family. RANDY ROMAN, FORMER HUSBAND OF AUGUSTA ROMAN: She was the woman that — that I married for life, and she was the woman that I wanted to have a family with. TUCHMAN: They had fertility issues and ultimately began in vitro fertilization treatment. Thirteen eggs were retrieved from Augusta’s ovaries. Six were fertilized with Randy’s sperm. The night before they were ready to implant the eggs: A. ROMAN: I got ready for bed. And he just came out of the office and said he has something that’s been on his mind that he wants to talk about. TUCHMAN: Augusta’s husband told her he didn’t want to go through with it. R. ROMAN: I just felt that something wasn’t right and the marriage wasn’t in harmony. A. ROMAN: I was pretty shocked. TUCHMAN: The couple went through marriage counseling, but, ultimately, they got divorced. However, Augusta, who is now 47, still wanted to try to have a baby from the three embryos that survived the freezing process. A. ROMAN: I want my children. Those are fetuses. They’re my children. They’re not just embryos out there. TUCHMAN: Randy Roman says he’s an evangelical Christian, but: R. ROMAN: Not everybody in the Christian community, or in the evangelical Christian community, believes that life begins at conception. And I’m one of those who does not believe that life begins at conception. TUCHMAN: Greg Enos is his attorney. GREG ENOS, ATTORNEY FOR RANDY ROMAN: He doesn’t want to have a child with a person who feels so negatively about him. He — and he wants to have a child in a nuclear family. TUCHMAN: So, in a most unusual divorce case, the Romans are fighting over their embryos. You will be amazed how far that fight has gone. We will tell you when we come back. (END VIDEOTAPE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) O’BRIEN: Like many couples, Augusta and Randy Roman wanted to start a family. And their attempts at childbirth lead them to in vitro fertilization treatment. But then the marriage fell apart. She hoped to create a family with the embryos, but he doesn’t want to. CNN’s Gary Tuchman continues his report, showing us just how far both are willing to take this fight. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TUCHMAN (voice-over): Both Augusta and Randy Roman had signed a form, agreeing to have the clinic discard the embryos in the event of a divorce. A. ROMAN: I wasn’t paying attention. I was signing a bunch of forms, trying to get to have babies. That was the only thing on my mind, trying to have babies. REBECCA REITZ, ATTORNEY FOR AUGUSTA ROMAN: My heart just breaks for her. TUCHMAN: Rebecca Reitz is Augusta’s attorney. REITZ: I know that — that society should — should err on the side of protecting life, and — and not destroying life. TUCHMAN: A Texas trial court ruled in favor of Augusta, but then an appellate court ruled in favor of Randy. The Texas Supreme Court decided not to hear the case. Now Augusta’s attorney is preparing briefs for the U.S. Supreme Court. The embryos remain frozen at this clinic. Anti-abortion groups support Augusta. CLARK FORSYTHE, AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE: The best-interests- of-the-child standard should be applied here to protect them, without regard to the individual will of either parent. TUCHMAN: One prominent bioethicist disagrees with that. DR. ARTHUR CAPLAN, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CENTER FOR BIOETHICS: He is involved in the creation of the embryos, as well as her. And you don’t want to put people in a position where they’re being asked to reproduce against their will with someone they don’t want to. TUCHMAN: Randy Roman says his ex-wife has made this very difficult and painful. R. ROMAN: She hates my guts, but she wants my sperm. A. ROMAN: I don’t hate him. I feel — I think he has a problem. And I do pray for him. TUCHMAN: She also prays that the U.S. Supreme Court take the case and rules in her favor. It’s her last legal chance. Gary Tuchman, CNN, Webster, Texas. (END VIDEOTAPE) O’BRIEN: OK. So, you have seen the story. Now to the legal issues that are at the center of this battle. For example, is there any difference between the legal rights of an embryo that’s inside the womb and one that’s outside the womb? We will take a look at that just ahead. *** Now back to that bitter custody battle we have been talking about, a divorced couple fighting over frozen embryos. Is this case going to go all the way to the Supreme Court? We are going to check in with law professor Jonathan Turley right after this short break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) O’BRIEN: In custody cases, courts usually decide by what’s — looking at what is for the best interest of the child. But what if there is a custody case, but no child? What if the fight is over frozen embryos? That’s what is unfolding in Texas between a divorced couple. Randy Roman doesn’t want the embryos implanted. His ex-wife, whose name is Augusta Roman, is hoping that she can use the embryos and have children. A Texas appeals court ruled in his favor, because the two signed a contract saying that those embryos would be discarded upon divorce. Now she’s asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in. Lots to talk about tonight. Joining us is Jonathan Turley. He, of course, is a constitutional law expert at George Washington University. Jonathan, nice to see you, as always. JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Thanks, Soledad. O’BRIEN: The Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case. What do you think the chances are that, in fact, the United States Supreme Court will hear this case? TURLEY: I would bet against it. I have got to tell you, I don’t think that the United States Supreme Court wants any part of this case. It’s very, very complex, in the sense that it has constitutional elements, contractual elements. But, at the end of the day, the Supreme Court generally leaves these things to the states. And I’m willing to bet you that a majority of the justices would agree with the court of appeals on the case. O’BRIEN: At the same time, you have some outstanding issues. She’s older. These embryos can remain frozen until they make a decision. But there’s sort of a clock ticking here in the background. Will that play any role? TURLEY: Well, all of this goes into the mix. I mean, the trial court actually found that, even if the embryos were implanted, she would have only about a 10 percent likelihood of actually bringing a child to full term. O’BRIEN: Because she’s 47 years old. TURLEY: That’s right. But, still, this is still the potentiality of something that she wants very, very much. And that’s what makes this all very, very tragic. And, so, you have this tension between a case — within a case in which you have got constitutional questions which are looming, the Roe v. Wade, you know, right-to-choose/right-to-life questions. But then you also have a sort of purely contractual question of, these are two people that entered a contract and said, we’re going to do something under these conditions. And one of those conditions was that we would not use the eggs unless both of us agreed. O’BRIEN: And it was clear. There was a form that was signed. She said, you know — she’s not saying she didn’t sign the form. The way she describes it, well, you know, there are lots of forms. And I just signed them because I wanted to go ahead and get — you know, get going with having these babies. Will that have any standing in a court? TURLEY: Not really. I mean, I can understand what she’s talking about. Many of us sign things, particularly when we’re distracted or we’re thinking about other matters. But we are held accountable to those. And this was a very important contract. This was dealing with fertilized eggs, the potentiality of being implanted. And I’m afraid the courts will use that lack of judgment or concentration against her. The — the terrible thing for many people, Soledad, is that these eggs are treated as property. They are just part of the estate. And what the court said originally, the trial court, was, this is a community property state. It’s part of community property. I’m going to give it to — give it to her, and she can use these eggs. But the court of appeals said, wrong, that this is subject to a contract. And the court also noted that there’s a strong public policy against requiring people to have children. O’BRIEN: Anti-abortion organizations are supporting Augusta in this. And she says — this is what she said in interview with the Associated Press — “If I was pregnant with these embryos, no one should come and say to me, abort them. There’s no difference,” she says, “between embryos inside the womb and outside the womb. I’m already pregnant.” Is she already pregnant, in the eyes of a court? TURLEY: No, not in the eyes of the court and not legally. She may view that morally… O’BRIEN: And not technically either. TURLEY: Yes, or technically. But she may believe that, morally, that — that that’s true, that this is the potentiality of life. You know, President Bush is opposed to destroying even stem cells under the same theory. But, legally, that’s not the case. And to make this argument to the Supreme Court is going to really buck the trend. Right now, conservatives are trying to take inches away from Roe v. Wade. This would be a moon shot. This would be asking justices to say that a fertilized egg is itself life that deserves full protection that you would give a full-term baby. That’s just not going to happen. And it hasn’t happened. The notable thing, Soledad, is that the courts have been almost uniform — in fact, I think they have been entirely uniform — in ruling against people trying to force an ex-spouse or ex-partner to relinquish control of these — these eggs, that the courts have said, you really cannot force someone to have a child. You have a right to procreate, but there’s a flip side. You have a right not to procreate, unless they signed a contract waiving that right, their right, to you. O’BRIEN: Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law expert with G.W. University. Nice to see you, Jonathan. Thanks so much.

Roman v. Roman started as a Texas divorce case involving the disposition of embryos that had been frozen by the couple prior to filing the divorce action. The trial court considered the embryos “property” and awarded them to Augusta Roman who wanted to have them implanted in her after the divorce. Randy Roman did not want to have children with a woman who hated him and he appealed. The Texas appellate court ruled in his favor in part because the party has signed a contractual agreement at the time the embryos were created that in the event of divorce, the would be destroyed. Augusta Roman then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court who refused to hear the case.

This author/attorney had hopes that perhaps Ms. Roman would decide to leave well enough alone particularly since it is highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will want to hear this case because of the very clear fact that these issues are a states right to regulate and the practical fact that at 47, Ms. Roman only has a 10% chance of being able to bring the embryos to term and this percentage decreases with every passing day. However, on last night’s CNN news show: Anderson Cooper, Ms. Roman indicated that her attorney is working on a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is clear that so long as she and her attorney continue to receive publicity about this case- it will fuel Ms. Roman’s litigious nature, and her attorney’s thirst for fame despite the pain and expense this is causing her ex-husband. Or perhaps it is because of it.

For Randy Roman, this is not an issue of avoiding parental rights or child support. He has vowed to support and be a part of any children regardless the outcome. Mr. Roman apparently must protect his moral, ethical and legal right not to be forced to father children against his will until the bitter legal end. The public at large should remember that although this case is unique and has become a legal fascination, it is also a personal tragedy for Mr. Roman- and undoubtedly for Ms. Roman as well. I hope for Mr. Roman (and Ms. Roman too) that this case will end as quickly as possible so he can move on with life.

If your client is suffering from a substance abuse problem in a Texas family law case, the best way to address the issues are to hit them head on. It is likely that all your client’s conduct prior to the hearing will be brought to light by the opposing side. It is therefore best to cushion the impact linked to the substance abuse by bringing them out yourself through your client. You want the judge to hear the story first through your own client instead of through the opposing side.

The theme of your case should be that your client is taking responsibility and taking control of his or her life. By breaking the bad news to the court about your client first, you are supporting this theme. Hopefully your client has already seeking treatment by attending a substance abuse facility, a recovery group or therapy. The best strategy is the use of all of these.

Before temporary orders, you should work with the substance abuse client in determining what his or her goals are. You must keep these goals realistic in light of the fact that your client is already behind the proverbial eight ball because of the substance abuse. For example, your client should realize that he or she is not likely to get primary conservatorship until he or she has been in sustained remission of his or her addictions and is availing themselves of substance abuse services. However, you should not persuade your client to roll over and die either. Careful requests on temporary orders will help your client position themselves for a final order hearing where several months have passed and much work has been put into treating their substance abuse issues. These requests include:

Request the preservation of joint decision-making rights and duties;

Ask for extra time, over and above a Standard Possession Order;

Obtain orders that require the primary parent to keep the other parent in the loop as to school events, sports schedules, and appointments. Require the other parent to include your client as to contact on any information sheets regarding the child, not simply the school or daycare emergency contact card;

Consider asking the court to appoint an amicus attorney to represent the interest of the child if you believe the child wants to have more contact with your client than the other parent will agree to provide. Tex. Fam. Code 107.021. The amicus attorney may be more responsive to the evidence that the parent with the substance abuse problem is seeking treatment and making significant changes in their behavior, lifestyle, and more specifically, in their interactions with the child;

Consider filing a motion for the judge to confer with the child pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code 153.009(b). (Source: “Use It and Lose It- Substance Abuse Issues in Divorce by Lynn Kaiman).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sean Y. Palmer is a family law attorney in Texas and is Certified as a Family Law Mediator. He practices exclusively in the area of family law and concentrates his practice on litigation in the following areas: dissolution of marriage (divorce), postdissolution matters, support, custody and related issues.
By applying a focused approach to family law throughout his career, Mr. Palmer has developed an expertise in the area. Mr. Palmer is long standing member of the College of the State Bar of Texas, a honorary society that recognizes Texas lawyers who voluntarily attend at least double the minimum required hours of continuing legal education.
Mr. Palmer’s commitment to client service, and his selectivity in choosing clients, means he is available to provide immediate and personal attention to those he works with. His personalized approach to each situation assures the client that a difficult and emotional time in their lives will be handled with sensitivity. Sean Y. Palmer, Texas family lawyer committed to the following areas: Divorce: alimony, division of property, child custody and visitation, child support, legal separations Domestic Violence Injunctions and Restraining Orders, Paternity, Separate Maintenance Agreements, Prenuptial Agreements, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution. Serving Houston, Galveston and the surrounding areas.
Contact The Palmer Law Firm at 281-335-3638, www.thepalmerlawfirm.com.

Disclaimer

This weblog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice or a solicitation. Use or viewing of this weblog in no way establishes an attorney-client relationship. Neither Sean Y. Palmer nor The Palmer Law Firm make any expressed or implied warranty about the information contained herein. Individuals with legal issues should consult a licensed attorney in their area.